"Modern children lack ability for Dickens..."

Ficheall

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16896661

Leading Charles Dickens biographer Claire Tomalin has said children are not being taught to read with the attention span necessary to appreciate the novelist's works.
Tomalin said Dickens's depiction of an unequal society was still "amazingly relevant", ahead of nationwide celebrations to mark the 200th anniversary of his birth.
Children were now unable to appreciate this due to "being reared on dreadful television programmes", she said in an interview with the Press Association.
"Children are not being educated to have prolonged attention spans and you have to be prepared to read steadily for a Dickens novel and I think that's a pity."
On Tuesday, events will take place around the UK to celebrate Dickens's bi-centenary.
They include a street party in Portsmouth, Hampshire, where the novelist was born.
There will be a wreath-laying ceremony at his grave in Poets' Corner in Westminster Abbey, London, attended by the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall and celebrities including Ralph Fiennes.
A Global Dickens Read-a-thon will also take place in 24 countries from Albania to Zimbabwe, beginning in Australia with a reading from Dombey and Son.
Tomalin, who will also attend the Westminster Abbey event, said Dickens was "after Shakespeare, the greatest creator of characters in English.
"He has gone on entertaining people since the 1830s and his characters' names are known all over the world.
"And because of the way he wrote, he adapts very well for theatre and even people who do not read him know about him from films, the TV and musicals.
"You only have to look around our society and everything he wrote about in the 1840s is still relevant - the great gulf between the rich and poor, corrupt financiers, corrupt MPs, how the country is run by old Etonians, you name it, he said it."
Tomalin added that the character in modern culture most like one created by Dickens was Basil Fawlty.
"The whole two series of Fawlty Towers stand up, they are so funny and Basil Fawlty, he is a Dickensian monster."
Tomalin's Charles Dickens: A Life has been widely acclaimed by literary critics and was shortlisted for 2011's Costa Book Awards biography prize.
She has also chronicled the lives of Samuel Pepys, Jane Austen and Thomas Hardy.

While I'd probably agree that children nowadays have shorter attention span/less imagination etc - I've always been an avid reader, yet Dickens never did anything for me... and it's certainly not something I'd give a child to read.

goose2005

His depictions of society weren't all that brilliant - Orwell puts it well (very long essay) http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/dickens/english/e_chd

El Siglo

Ficheall wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16896661



While I'd probably agree that children nowadays have shorter attention span/less imagination etc - I've always been an avid reader, yet Dickens never did anything for me... and it's certainly not something I'd give a child to read.

"There are books of which the backs and covers are by far the best parts."

BaconZombie

OP you need to put a TL;DR on the bottom of that post?

44leto

Ficheall wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16896661



While I'd probably agree that children nowadays have shorter attention span/less imagination etc - I've always been an avid reader, yet Dickens never did anything for me... and it's certainly not something I'd give a child to read.

They had the attention span for the Potter novels and read them in their millions.

I to am an avid reader and also Dickens never appealed to me.

djimi

Got as far as "being reared on dreadful television programmes" and stopped reading. I hate people who take that attitude; society has moved on, people prefer visual media these days. I love to read and I think its very important for children to read, but to expect a child to sit through the works of Dickens (which I as a 29 year old struggle with) is absurd.

doomed

I had no interest in Dickens when I was a kid but I got back into them in recent years and they are much better and wittier than I thought. However a lot of it would go over a child's head.

later12

Personally I really enjoy Dickens. But I can see how children today might have trouble with his language in particular; it is rather archaic by today's standards.

On the other hand, Dickens is a master of punctuation. I'm not a grammar dick, but if you ever want lessons in the effective and precise use of punctuation, just consult a Dickens novel. He makes it an art in itself.

brummytom

I don't think it's anything to do with attention span. I've had to read far, far longer books than half of Dickens' just for GCSE English, which wasn't a problem.


Dickens is just dirge.

goose2005

it was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.

44leto

djimi wrote: »

Got as far as "being reared on dreadful television programmes" and stopped reading. I hate people who take that attitude; society has moved on, people prefer visual media these days. I love to read and I think its very important for children to read, but to expect a child to sit through the works of Dickens (which I as a 29 year old struggle with) is absurd.

But that is becoming a problem, the internet is changing children's brains. The internet is to easy and fast and it is easily distracting hence the deficits in attention spans.

If you want to learn something it should take effort there really is no substitute for a book and a good teacher.

Stereomaniac

I think that's because it has just been lost over time. If you are exposed to something intensively enough, you'll believe in it eventually. Forgive me, I use the wrong words. I mean, I will, and by believe in it, I mean, grasp some level of understanding. Classics are classics.

El Siglo

goose2005 wrote: »

it was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.

You stupid monkey!

Suryavarman

Such a shame, The Muppet Christmas Carol is a classic.

HavingCrack

I enjoyed Great Expectations and A Christmas Carol. I found A Tale of Two Cities to be dire, tried reading it twice and only got about 60 pages in on both occasions. His other books are distinctly average, not really children's books in any case.

kylith

I too think the problem is with the subject matter rather than the children. My nieces and nephew are avid readers, and have no problem getting through the Eragon books, which are much larger than any Dickens novel I've seen.

I read voraciously as a child, and often quite old and age-inappropriate books, but I could never stomach Dickens; it just did nothing for me.

later10 wrote: »

On the other hand, Dickens is a master of punctuation. I'm not a grammar dick, but if you ever want lessons in the effective and precise use of punctuation, just consult a Dickens novel. He makes it an art in itself.

I might give it another look, so. I,m always trying; to improve, my punctuation.

Logical Fallacy

I have a genuine distrust of biographers tbh.

You have to seriously hero worship someone to want to write a biography of them, so it's largely impossible to operate without bias.

HavingCrack

44leto wrote: »

But that is becoming a problem, the internet is changing children's brains. The internet is to easy and fast and it is easily distracting hence the deficits in attention spans.

If you want to learn something it should take effort there really is no substitute for a book and a good teacher.

While I agree with the first part the second is not neccessarily correct. Sometimes the audio visual or audio can be a more effective tool for learning than a book.

Have a look at the television documentary series The World at War is considered by many to be the definitive history of WW2 rather than a book. There are scores of books on WW2 out there (and I've read a lot of them) but none do as good a job as television did to be honest.

44leto

HavingCrack wrote: »

I enjoyed Great Expectations and A Christmas Carol. I found A Tale of Two Cities to be dire, tried reading it twice and only got about 60 pages in on both occasions. His other books are distinctly average, not really children's books in any case.

I did enjoy a Christmas Carol when i was a kid but if I just picked it up I wouldn't, its to over exposed.

I read Bram Stokers Dracula last year and I did enjoy that, so some classics will always have merit to spite their exposure.

HavingCrack

44leto wrote: »

I read Bram Stokers Dracula last year and I did enjoy that, so some classics will always have merit to spite their exposure.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein would be another .

44leto

HavingCrack wrote: »

While I agree with the first part the second is not neccessarily correct. Sometimes the audio visual or audio can be a more effective tool for learning than a book.

Have a look at the television documentary series The World at War is considered by many to be the definitive history of WW2 rather than a book. There are scores of books on WW2 out there (and I've read a lot of them) but none do as good a job as television did to be honest.

Well you picked an exceptional documentary there, I really couldn't disagree with you there on that particular serious because it is brilliant.

But what I find, documentaries are easilly forgotten with a book and personal instruction you retain and understand the info more, maybe that is just me.

Underdraft

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I have a genuine distrust of biographers tbh.

You have to seriously hero worship someone to want to write a biography of them, so it's largely impossible to operate without bias.

Or it could just be a job. I'm sure not every biography ever written was done so by a fan of that person.

Logical Fallacy

HavingCrack wrote: »

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein would be another .

Indeed. An amazing piece of literature.

losthorizon

doomed wrote: »

I had no interest in Dickens when I was a kid but I got back into them in recent years and they are much better and wittier than I thought. However a lot of it would go over a child's head.

That's because children are usually very small in stature.If you put them on a box it might help.

Gurgle

I'm rolling with the crowd here: Dickens crap, kids fine.

HavingCrack

44leto wrote: »

Well you picked an exceptional documentary there, I really couldn't disagree with you there on that particular serious because it is brilliant.

But what I find, documentaries are easilly forgotten with a book and personal instruction you retain and understand the info more, maybe that is just me.

I suppose whatever works best for you. As you say the World at War is a fantastic series, streets ahead of most documentaries so maybe it's an unfair comparison. I love learning from books myself rather than TV.

I'm not sure is there much research done into which is the most effective method of retaining information. I have a few friends in college who swear by audio for learning. They repeat their notes into a speaker, record them and play it back to them on CD :eek:. I tried it a few times and just couldn't do it. I hate audio books though so I should not have been suprised.

Different strokes I guess.

saa

R dey tryn tu saeeiii am stpd? xoxox

GLaDOS

I generally find older English difficult to read smoothly, even if I like the book.

Underdraft

“What’s to-day!” cried Scrooge, calling downward to a boy in Sunday clothes, who perhaps had loitered in to look about him.
“Eh?” returned the boy, with all his might of wonder.
“What’s to-day, my fine fellow?” said Scrooge.
“To-day!” replied the boy. “Eh.... let me check the calendar app on my iphone”

Extract from Charles Dickens "An Xmas Update, Innit"

44leto

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I generally find older English difficult to read smoothly, even if I like the book.

The reason for that was the audience at that time, they hadn't the same exposure to stuff the way a modern audience would. So a writer had to use a lot of descriptions.

For example I could mention New York knowing you would already have an image of that city in your mind, so I wouldn't have to go into a detailed description of that place.

paddyandy

Dickens made caricatures of people .Ridicule was his trade .He made Monsters of people in Authority and i'm sure they were there sometimes .

cableguy.ie

When ever I hear Dickens I remember Third rock from the Sun. When Dick said.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. (flips to the back of the book) I'm not going to read 380 pages if he can't even make up his mind in the first sentence!.

starlit

I don't think that's the case. I think they just have no interest. Kids now a day's come from a major technological generation more so than my own. So reading books is not always a major thing for them though not saying they don't read they do but don't spend as much time or engrossed in it like they did before in my time.

Though not saying they may not understand dickens they might not but the emphasise on books is a bit different in schools compared to years ago. Different types of learning and intelligences and all that. Though technology was around when I was a kid but wasn't the be it and end all like it is now days. Most kids my age back then were reading books so by the time we went to secondary school learning about the likes of Charles Dickens stories we would have read either while in school or outside of school as reading would have been a hobby for a certain number of kids when I were a kid. Not just a means of homework. Some even went ton to study his stories in college.

I'm still good to read books to this day yet I am big into technology myself I still balance out my time between reading books and technology. There will come a time that books might not exist that we be reading them online and in a technological invention as they are already such as an e-reader.

Then you have the issue of text speak though...use of the english language in proper terms has twindled a bit making it harder for kids to understand dickens english in his books. Though understanding is important, comprehending what they are reading is more important than just understanding what's happening in it and what words are in the book. Understanding what's happening I think is more important than just being able to logical come up with what theme is this that and the other in a particular scene one of his books.

I tried reading great expectations found it impossible now watched the drama of it that was recently on bbc during Christmas and was able to understand it more clearly. I had an idea of the story already from what I read but I found watching it made the story come across more clearly. Its a head wreck otherwise if you read something and cannot follow it well!

Though I read a few of his books and found them more comprehend-able and have read the likes of Shakespeare a bit difficult but found maeve binchey, Marian, keyes, jk rowling, dan brown and Jane Austen whose books are a little easier to understand sometimes! And of course the more modern ones including Melissa hill and Cecilia ahern and those similar to their books. Their fun and exciting and knowing what's going to happen next is the exciting part. Though I read all sorts, thrillers, adventure, bio, fiction, non-fiction, romantic/romantic comedy, drama, historical books and so on.

The King of Moo

There's definitely a hint of snobbery and bias in what Tomalin said.

However, though I'm a staunch defender of reading and Dickens in particular, I agree that modern children lack the capacity for Dickens.
But I'd add that I think the children of Dickens' time lacked the capacity for Dickens, as did all the other children born between then and now.

His work is simply too dense and nuanced for children to read.
Though I agree that the attention spans of all ages have become shortened (due to the instant information culture of the internet, rather than tv), most kids would do fine with a long Harry Potter or Eragon novel. Length isn't really an issue if it's engaging enough and the writing style isn't too difficult.

But Dickens wrote primarily for adults, and he was incredibly intelligent.

Complaining that kids aren't up to reading his work is like complaining about kids liking Disney films instead of the works of Alain Resnais and Jean-Luc Godard.
Dickens is too much for most kids.

However, I think Dickens would be good for the Leaving Cert. There are few writers with such a profound insight into humanity and society, and with such a mastery of the English language. Every single word of his I've read seems to have been perfectly chosen, without and extra word or one too few.
And I agree with Tomalin that his depictions of an unjust, unequal society are still relevant.

Nyan Cat

I read a lot and cant stick dickens. Shakesphere etc. I can comprehend it (the old english) but i find the work so unengaging. The extra work involved to decipher the old english just makes it not worth the effort.
Thats probably what turns kids off older classics.

Liam Byrne

djimi wrote: »

Got as far as "being reared on dreadful television programmes" and stopped reading. I hate people who take that attitude; society has moved on, people prefer visual media these days. I love to read and I think its very important for children to read, but to expect a child to sit through the works of Dickens (which I as a 29 year old struggle with) is absurd.

Since when is a comment on the dreadful television programmes a general comment about all programmes or visual media in general ?

She also has a point - if people don't have the attention span to learn and use the language properly (to the point where boards has to allow the dumbing-down of posts) then there is a serious problem.

That said, there are bound to be mixed views as to whether Dickens is the literary equivalent of Jeremy Kyle or Stephen Fry.

conor.hogan.2

Dickens not relevant to most people more like it.

byhookorbycrook

Dickens is not written for children and though some children choose to read his books, there are so many wonderful books now for children,most choose to read those.

Unique User Name

I would agree. With the number of priests being charged I'd say modern children definitely lack ability for dickings.

mikom

Ficheall wrote: »

"Modern children lack ability for Dickens..."

Signed.
Gary Glitter.

44leto

Someone recommended Jules Verne I never read one of his novels as I kind of thought the science fiction would be to dated.

But he was meant to be a really beautiful writer. Has anyone else read one?

mikom

44leto wrote: »

Someone recommended Jules Verne I never read one of his novels as I kind of thought the science fiction would be to dated.
But he was meant to be a really beautiful writer. Has anyone else read one?

I read the one he wrote on Soccer.

20,000 Leagues Since Liverpool Won One.

Sarky

I don't think it's that kids lack the capacity for Dickens. I certainly had little trouble with him as a child. But I did find him intolerably dull. Hard Times bored me to tears as a long meandering story where nothing happened. The characters are horrifically stereotyped and contain all the depth of a spoon. Bad people are ugly and meet unfortunate ends, good people are pretty and things generally work out fine. It was like reading a novelisation of a single-panel political cartoon from any of today's newspapers.

There are just far better writers about that can make the same points without boring you half to death while doing it. Dickens is boring. It's that simple.

paddyandy

All the readin' i did over the years and i still know f'all .I'd read sauce bottle labels if there was nothing else .

wilkie2006

In fairness, the article hardly delivers any real insight; the internet, Hollywood and video games have fcuked most kids' imaginations and attention spans. Not only would I agree with that, I'd add that most adults suffer the same problem.

Irish Guitarist

Does she seriously think that the best way to get children to read a book is to tell them it's relevant to modern social issues? Why would children care about class struggles and corrupt MPs?

kylith

44leto wrote: »

Someone recommended Jules Verne I never read one of his novels as I kind of thought the science fiction would be to dated.

But he was meant to be a really beautiful writer. Has anyone else read one?

Give them a try; I think Verne is great

Doc Ruby

44leto wrote: »

Someone recommended Jules Verne I never read one of his novels as I kind of thought the science fiction would be to dated.

But he was meant to be a really beautiful writer. Has anyone else read one?

I haven't read Jules Verne since I was eight years old, amazing writer though.

As for Dickens, like Shakespeare, I prefer him in the original Irish.

LH Pathe

Is dickens pedo slang? if so they'd argue other

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I haven't read Jules Verne since I was eight years old, amazing writer though.

As for Dickens, like Shakespeare, I prefer him in the original Irish.

Fred Nietsczhe, also. And Socrates.

Seriously, though, if you wand kids to hat something, put in on the Leaving Cert. I had Wuthering ****ing Heights. It had the same effect on me that kryptonite does on superman. That or get kids to do seveon or eight novels over the couse of two years rather than just one.

elefant

I reckon kids don't take to Dickens nowadays because kids don't read to analyse texts, they read books if they enjoy them and relate to them. The relevance of what 19th century Charles Dickens had to say in his writing for today's world is hardly something that would bother a 12 year old.